Funding Gavi is the simplest financial decision facing Keir Starmer. He must get it right
When he announced he was cutting international cooperation and aid to its lowest level on record, Keir Starmer promised he would protect global health. He is now about to take a decision that will show how serious he was. Will he maintain the UK's support for the global vaccine alliance, Gavi, which has prevented an estimated 18 million deaths since its inception in 2000? In the view of Save the Children and more than 150 other organisations around the world, it is critical that he does.
Gavi has been one of the most effective investments in public health in modern history. In the last 25 years, the alliance has helped immunise more than a billion children. Gavi supports the rollout of vaccines for everything from measles to polio to Ebola. In doing so, it not only saves lives but builds up national health systems, strengthens pandemic preparedness and helps protect us all – everywhere including Britain – from the spread of infectious disease.
Five years ago, through the Covid-19 pandemic, we witnessed that when it comes to health, nobody is safe until everyone is safe. Gavi's purpose is to shield us from the re-emergence of pandemics and lethal but preventable diseases. The fact that it is struggling to secure enough money to continue its critical mission tells us a lot about the geo-political climate today and the false instinct to draw back from international cooperation to solve global problems.
Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions known to mankind. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates the return on routine vaccinations at $54 for every $1 invested. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more attractive investment proposition; and that's before you take account of the human factor. Anyone who has met a mother mourning a child who could have been saved by a routine jab or seen toddlers gasping for breath because their measles has turned into pneumonia, will know what I mean.
I understand it can feel difficult to back aid in times of economic crisis, budget deficits and a struggling NHS here at home. When it comes to Gavi and global health security, however, the benefits so outweigh the costs that any vacillation seems incomprehensible.
Infectious diseases know no borders, and the cost comes home to Britain. In 2023-24, more than 20 per cent of secondary care bed days in the NHS were attributable to infectious disease or infections. The cost to the NHS was £5.9 billion. Gavi's role in supporting routine vaccination and its stockpiles of vaccines against killers such as Ebola, cholera and yellow fever represent our first line of defence against future pandemics and the terrible costs counted in ruined lives and devastating economic damage.
Some say governments in the Global South could, and maybe should, buy their own vaccines. They ask why British taxpayers should pay for jabs for African arms. This misses an important point: vaccine markets, like many essential commodities, are global. If every country did its own procurement, the poorest – those with the lowest bargaining power – would immediately be priced out of essential, life saving vaccines.
Perhaps the most important thing Gavi has done in the last 30 years is to shape this market. By guaranteeing the purchase of hundreds of millions of vaccines over many years, Gavi has enabled pharma companies to manufacture many more doses and, through economies of scale, do it much more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.
It has also enticed other firms to enter the fray and compete. Witness the Serum Institute of India, which played a major role in supplying Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic and has now become a vaccine manufacturing giant.
And Gavi works with countries to 'graduate' so that they pay for an increasingly large share of their own vaccines as they become richer, thereby ensuring that aid-funded doses go to the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
The UK, as a founding member, has helped Gavi become the world-changing alliance it is today. Our partnership has put British scientific leadership in the global spotlight. From 18 million doses of ground-breaking malaria vaccines that are already saving lives in Africa to digital biometric identification and record-keeping that are transforming health systems in Ghana, Gavi links UK scientists and innovators with partner governments in the global South.
At Save the Children, we're working with national governments and local communities – for example in Malawi where a recent cholera outbreak killed more than 1,700 people – to make sure children are protected from deadly and debilitating illness. With our private sector partner GSK, we are targeting millions of 'zero-dose' children who are completely unvaccinated in Nigeria and Ethiopia. In war-torn Sudan, we are transporting vials into a country whose health services are shattered.
All this would be immeasurably harder to do without Gavi ensuring that vaccines are made affordably in large enough quantities for the most vulnerable populations.
To keep up UK funding of Gavi is one of the most straightforward decisions this government must make. I know a bargain when I see one. I hope Keir Starmer will too.
Moazzam Malik is chief executive of Save the Children UK
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wagner Group announces withdrawal from Mali
The Wagner mercenary group announced on June 6 that it was withdrawing its presence from Mali, ending its fight with rebel groups. "Mission accomplished. Private Military Company Wagner returns home," the group, founded by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin, announced on social media. Wagner mercenaries have been fighting alongside Malian government forces since 2021, in attempts to fend off Islamic insurgents. The group said that it was ending its presence as "all regional capitals have returned to the control of the legitimate government," providing little rationale for the group's exit from the war-torn nation. Wagner mercenaries and Malian soldiers have reportedly suffered heavy losses in their engagements with Tuareg-led rebels. The Russian mercenary group, known for its deployment in Ukraine and short-lived rebellion against the Kremlin in 2023, has a strong presence across the African continent, backing Russian business interests and Moscow-friendly regimes. The mercenaries have been particularly active in Mali since late 2021 and has been of perpetrating war crimes and widespread looting. In December 2024, Human Rights Watch accused Wagner mercenaries and Malian government forces of deliberately killing 32 civilians. The so-called "Africa Corps," under the command of Russia's Defense Ministry, who fought alongside Wagner mercenaries, will continue to have an active presence in Mali. Mali broke diplomatic ties with Ukraine over its alleged support of Tuareg-led rebels without providing any evidence of direct cooperation. The step was taken after comments by Andrii Yusov, Ukraine's military intelligence (HUR) spokesperson, about the rebels receiving "useful information, and not just that, which allowed them to carry out a successful military operation against Russian war criminals." Ukraine's Foreign Ministry later denied the country's involved with rebel groups. Read also: Ukraine war latest: Russia hits Ukraine with large-scale attack days after Operation Spiderweb; Ukraine targets Russian air bases in 'preemptive strike' We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why NYC mayoral candidate Ramos says she endorsed opponent Cuomo
NEW YORK - In a surprising political twist, mayoral candidate and state Senator Jessica Ramos endorsed former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, despite her previous criticisms of him, including his handling of the COVID pandemic and sexual harassment allegations. Cuomo, however, declined to endorse Ramos in return. What they're saying Ramos, who has been critical of Cuomo's record and even compared his mental acuity to that of former President Joe Biden, now sees the race as primarily between two candidates: Cuomo and State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. LIST: Meet the candidates running for NYC mayor She says that Mamdani does not have the experience to run the city and that Cuomo is better suited to take on President Donald Trump. "Andrew Cuomo and I definitely don't have the same style in governing, and I am hoping that we are focused on tackling the very serious threat of Donald Trump upon our city," she said. Ramos will remain on the ballot, but her endorsement acknowledges the fact that she sees no path to victory. Since entering the race, Ramos' campaign struggled to get off the ground. She never raised enough small-dollar contributions for public matching funds and never gained any meaningful support among the city's labor unions. The Working Families Party also did not initially include her in their slate of candidates, and Ramos made it clear that she felt spurned by the organization. Cuomo brushed off Ramos' past criticisms on Friday, stating that campaign rhetoric often leads to strong statements about opponents. He acknowledged her endorsement but clarified he is not endorsing her in return. "She is endorsing me. I'm not endorsing her," he said. The other side Mamdani said he is disappointed that Ramos chose to endorse Cuomo. "To see him continue to be legitimized is something that will always trouble me, especially given the fact that we have run this campaign," he said. "Many of us as candidates being crystal clear that while each of us thinks we will make the best next mayor of New York, we all share the agreement it should not be Andrew Cuomo." Meanwhile, protesters interrupted a housing rally being held by Mamdani in Lower Manhattan that ended with a man, Raul Rivera, allegedly biting one of the tenant organizers. The NYPD said Rivera was arrested for assault, and the woman who was bitten was treated on the scene. Mamdani and others have called on Cuomo to condemn the violence. What's next New York City's primary elections are on Tuesday, June 24. The Source This article uses candidate statements
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.